Cloning dinosaurs. This just reeks of a horror movie scenario. It sounds dangerous, but also cool, and the science is believable enough that, whether or not it is possible to do what the scientists in Jurassic Park did (it technically is), you can believe that it happened. What Jurassic Park did smart, though, is it didn't just limit itself to horror cliches and storylines. It introduced us to characters who we could come to like or hate, mixed in a clever, and important, environmentalist message, and bombarded us with the wonder of finding oneself in a world where creatures who haven't existed for millions of years walk side by side with us. Then it brought the horror, and it did it well, giving us tense and memorable scenes such as the T-Rex creeping up on the powered-down jeep, or the Raptors in the kitchen with the kid characters. Jurassic World strove to recreate these things as often as possible, while still bringing something new to the table, so let's make the comparisons, then look at the differences, and decide how this movie stacks up.
In Jurassic World, cloning Dinosaurs is old hat, as Dinosaurs themselves have come to be. The Park has been open for some time now, and as with any form of entertainment, people are demanding more and more from it. this leads to the creation of a genetic hybrid dinosaur, which sounds ever so slightly more ridiculous (though it might actually be more plausible than just straight up cloning them, believe it or not). It sounds like a sequel plot, and makes the movie feel a bit more like a movie than the original did. The way they use this scenario, however, is endlessly clever. The original movie only really focused on whether it was right to play God and recreate these creatures, and whether they should be commercialized. It was all about human ethical responsibility in a fairly vague sense, and criticized how humans interact with their environment in a mostly harmful way, forcing it to change to suit us, rather than learning to coexist with it. In Jurassic World, the messages are more defined. The movie criticizes overzealous militarization, animal neglect, and the treatment of animals in captivity. It taught that killing animals should not be the first course of action, and neither should using them, that animals should be respected. It was good, and it had an impact, while not distracting from the film's other elements. I'd call that a win.
Not so much a win is the characters. In Jurassic Park the kid characters were likeable, and you cared whether or not they made it through. The leads were realistic as people, with little quirks and mannerisms, and you related to them. You absolutely loathed some people, and wanted them to be dino chow. In Jurassic World, the kids were okay, but they were more like a pair of vaguely interesting tour guides showing the audience around the now fully-functional park. The leads were a little more caricatured. You have action hero dino trainer Chris Pratt and under-emotional business lady Bryce Dallas Howard. They were a little too much a pair of cliches for you to be able to connect with them completely. You want them to survive because they are Chris Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard, and they get some good emotional and entertaining moments (especially Chris Pratt with the Raptors, and Bryce Dallas Howard with her idea in the climax which I will not spoil because it was AMAZING), but in the end they are more a means to convey the story than they are realistic characters, unfortunately. As for characters that you love to hate, there was really only the military guy played by Vincent D'Onofrio, and Bryce Dallas Howard's vacuous assistant, and really only the former kept you invested in his storyline at all. And it was obvious how he was going to meet his end from his very first scene. It was a good effort, but I give it a C+ at best.
As for the horror elements, this movie felt more like an action movie at many points than a tense, slow burn, atmospheric piece like Jurassic Park was. This wasn't particularly bad, as the action scenes of various people and animals fighting the genetic hybrid, the Indominous Rex, were tense in their own way, and certainly exciting, there just wasn't a scene which matched, say, the Raptors in the kitchen scene. The closest the movie came was another scene involving the Raptors, and it was presented very well, it just didn't evoke the same emotional response. Not to mention that, by the end, it was a full-blown action piece with admittedly one of the best monster fights I've ever seen. It just felt less like a Jurassic Park movie, and more like Godzilla.
Which brings me to what this movie did different than the first. Where Jurassic Park gave us wondrous scene after wondrous scene, Jurassic World seemed to realize that this wouldn't be possible with the tone of the movie, presenting the park as something almost boring. As something normal that the world has become desensitized to. So moments of wonder were fewer, focusing more than anything on the park itself, making the audience feel like this could really be a real place, and giving us a chance to experience it. The rest of the run-time was filled up with action pieces of the human characters facing off again and again with the unnaturally fierce and intelligent I-Rex. In many ways it felt like a Godzilla movie, with a walking allegory for the unchecked advancement of human technology besting mankind with its many special powers. The end, which was a fight between this super dinosaur and its natural rivals, could have been a Godzilla fight. It was great, but it might have been a little overblown and unrealistic. I loved it, but I can see why someone else might prefer something closer to the original.
Still, I don't think that anyone can argue that this movie wasn't fun, or that it wasn't the first Jurassic Park sequel to make a meaningful point and keep its message straight from start to finish. It wasn't quite as good as the original, but unlike the first two sequels, which this movie seems to ignore, it was actually worthwhile, I liked it a lot, and I recommend it, giving it a solid 6.5 out of 10 solidly above average. Just FYI, I'd probably only give the original a 7.5 out of 10. It has way more silly and nonsensical moments that most people seem to remember. Maybe I'll do a review of it some time soon.
No comments:
Post a Comment